With maven we can exclude some transitive dependencies.
But what if we need them at runtime, and still as architect I don't want them to be used and become API dependencies.
Is there tool to define and check for unwanted used dependency (i.e. imported in some Java class)?
A search here gives me hint for maven
In maven, can you disallow usage of transitive dependency in your code but still keep it in the classpath?
But that may be to laborious to define. Maybe IDE tools should be used?
How to disallow import and use of some transitive maven dependencies?
So that code will not be accessing different layers of our stack.
Yes, I understand that some educational work should go as well.
When dealing with maven there is a concept of dependency scope. Typically for Java EE applications you will see 3 scopes leveraged the most:
Compile - This is the default scope used if none is specified. These will be available in all of a project's classpaths.
Provided - This scope is used when the dependency is not needed for compilation, but is expected to be in the container at runtime.
Test - This is a dependency needed for testing, but not required for the normal use of the application
Based off of your use case I believe you are looking to leverage the provided scope for a dependency where the dependency is needed at runtime, but should not be available to the application during compilation. You can read more about dependency scopes at: https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html
Related
From the viewpoint of a Gradle java library author, I understand that a dependency specified in the implementation configuration will be marked with the runtime scope in the resulting POM file that gets published (using the maven-publish Gradle plugin). This makes sense, as anyone consuming my published library doesn't need the dependency for compilation (it is an internal dependency), but instead only for runtime. If I specify a dependency in the api configuration, it will be marked with the compile scope in the resulting POM file, which again makes sense, as anyone consuming my library needs this for compilation (and runtime).
This makes me believe that the meaning of the Maven dependency scope is relative to anyone consuming the component, and not relative to the component itself. Consider a published Maven library (containing Java class files) a dependency marked with compile should mean:
If you compile against me, then use this dependency on the compilation classpath too!
However, according to the Maven docs, it seems that it means:
I was compiled with that dependency on my compilation classpath, and if you want to compile me again, do the same!
If this were true, then one could not distinguish between API-dependencies and implementation-dependencies like Gradle does. Also, it would only make sense if the published component actually contains the sources, not only the class files.
Did Gradle actually "misuse" the meaning of these scopes to make some improvements, or did I fundamentally misunderstand something?
Gradle cleverly "misuses" the scopes.
Maven has the design flaw that the build POM is published 1:1 as consumer POM (this will change with the upcoming Maven 4.x). So Maven does not have the chance to use something for compilation in the project, but for runtime when consumed by another project (at least not without applying tricks). The Maven docs therefore do not discuss the possibility of "implementation/api".
If I build a war for a specific platform (e.g. Wildfly), I need to filter out dependencies that are already provided by the platform.
Up to now, we do this by using a special BOM that lists all the provided dependencies with scope provided. Alternatively, one could also use the Maven war plugin to exclude the dependencies when building the war.
What is the preferred way?
Provided scope is there for this specific reason.
From maven documentation
provided
This is much like compile, but indicates you expect the JDK or a container to provide the dependency at runtime. For example, when building a web application for the Java Enterprise Edition, you would set the dependency on the Servlet API and related Java EE APIs to scope provided because the web container provides those classes. This scope is only available on the compilation and test classpath, and is not transitive.
The transitive dependencies of the provided scope will be also be in provided scope unless it is explicitly added in compile scope. If exclution is used it may cause jar conflict unless those jar are also excluded.
Also provided scope works with other packaging like ear
We are building an ear that is going to run on a Websphere where j2ee.jar is provided.
Now we have the situation that an ejb (call it ejb.jar) depends on another jar (call it util.jar) which depends on j2ee.jar.
If mark j2ee.jar in the pom of util.jar as "provided", the ejb.jar won't build because provided is not transitive. If we mark it as "compile", it may become a compile dependency of the ear, unless we overwrite the scope.
What is the best approach? Should util.jar have provided dependencies, even if it is just a humble jar? Or should jars only have compile dependencies?
JARs can have provided dependencies... but the user having a dependency on it needs to make sure that this dependency is actually going to be provided at run-time. Since provided dependencies are not transitive, they also need to make sure that they do not depend on it for compilation; but if they do, the best practice would be to declare it explicitly with the compile (or provided) scope, and not rely on some form of transitivity (look at the analyze goal of the Dependency Plugin, which, for example, lists used, but undeclared, dependencies).
Provided dependencies in JARs can be useful when creating executable JARs. Consider the building of an uber-jar (a JAR with the classes all of its dependencies included in it): you may want to say that a specific dependency shouldn't end up in the uber-jar, because the container launching it will provide it at run-time.
Also, a JAR may need a dependency to compile its code, but does not actually need it to run; as example, consider Maven plugins which declares maven-plugin-annotations as a provided dependency because they only need the annotations to be built.
Final point, there are JARs that have a good idea in which context they are going to be used: Spring WebMVC, for example, certainly depends on the Servlet API to compile, but at run-time, it knows it's going to be used in a Java EE context, and that the Servlet API will be provided by the Java EE server.
As a rule of thumb though, apart from the cases above, you probably don't want to have provided JAR dependencies inside of a JAR project: it should be up the client to decide whether some compile-time dependencies of yours are going to be provided for their specific case, and let the client override the scope. As a library writer, you don't really know how your library is going to be used.
In your specific case, since ejb.jar actually needs j2ee.jar to compile, it would be best to declare that dependency with the compile, or even with the provided scope in your case, regardless of what scope util.jar has set for j2ee.jar. (I'll note that it's weird for an utility JAR to have a dependency on what appears to be a JAR from Java EE web application classes.)
I am coming from .NET background and I need to do some JAVA work these days. One thing I don't quite understand is how JAvA runtime resolve its jar dependencies. For example, I want to use javax.jcr to do some node adding. So I know I need to add these two dependencies because I need to use javax.jcr.Node and org.apache.jackrabbit.commons.JcrUtils.
<dependency>
<groupId>javax.jcr</groupId>
<artifactId>jcr</artifactId>
<version>2.0</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.jackrabbit</groupId>
<artifactId>jackrabbit-jcr-commons</artifactId>
<version>2.8.0</version>
</dependency>
</dependency>
Now I passed the compilation but I get an exception in runtime. Then someone told me to add one more dependency which solves the problem.
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.jackrabbit</groupId>
<artifactId>jackrabbit-jcr2dav</artifactId>
<version>2.6.0</version>
</dependency>
From my understanding, jackrabbit-jcr-commons needs jackrabbit-jcr2dav to run. If the jar misses a dependecy, how can it pass the compilation? And also how do I know I miss this particular dependency from jcr-common? This is a general question, it doesn't have to be specific to java jcr.
Java doesn't have any built-in way to declare dependencies between libraries. At runtime, when a class is needed, the Java ClassLoader tries to load it from all the jars in the classpath, and if the class is missing, then you get an exception. All the jars you need must be explicitly listed in the classpath. You can't just add one jar, and hope for Java to transitively load classes from this jar dependencies, because jar dependencies are a Maven concept, and not a Java concept. Nothing, BTW, forbids a library writer to compile 1000 interdependant classes at once, but put the compiled classes in 3 several different jars.
So what's left is Maven. I know nothing about JCR. But if a jar A published on Maven depends on a jar B published on Maven, then it should list B in its list of dependencies, and Maven should download B when it downloads A (and put both jars in the classpath).
The problem, however, is that some libraries have a loose dependency on other libraries. For example, Spring has native support for Hibernate. If you choose to use Spring with Hibernate, then you will need to explicitly declare Hibernate in your dependencies. But you could also choose to use Spring without Hibernate, and in that case you don't need to put Hibernate in the dependencies. Spring thus chooses to not declare Hibernate as one of its own dependencies, because Hibernate is not always necessary when using Spring.
In the end, it boils down to reading the documentation of the libraries you're using, to know which dependencies you need to add based on the features you use from these libraries.
Maven calculates transitive dependencies during compile-time, so compilation passes ok. The issue here is that, by default, maven won't build a proper java -cp command line to launch your application with all of its' dependencies (direct and transitive).
Two options to solve it:
Adjust your Maven project to build a "fat jar" -- jar which will include all needed classes from all dependencies. See SO answer with pom.xml snippet to do this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/16222971/162634. Then you can launch by just java -cp myfatjar.jar my.app.MainClass
For multi-module project, with several result artifacts (that is, usually, different java programs) it makes sense to build custom assembly.xml which will tell Maven how to package your artifacts and which dependencies to include. You'll need to provide some kind of script in resulting package which will contain proper java -cp ... command. As far as I know, there's no "official" Maven plugin to build such a script during compilation/packaging.
There's free Maven book which more or less explains how dependencies and assemblies work.
Your question mixes Maven (a java-centric dependency resolution tool) and Java compile-time and run-time class-resolution. Both are quite different.
A Java .jar is, in simplified terms, a .zip file of Java .class files. During compilation, each Java source file, say MyClass.java, results in a Java bytecode file with the same name (MyClass.class). For compilation to be successful, all classes mentioned in a Java file must be available in the class-path at compile-time (but note that use of reflection and run-time class-name resolution, ala Class.forName("MyOtherClass") can avoid this entirely; also, you can use several class-loaders, which may be scoped independently of each other...).
However, after compilation, you do not need to place all your .class files together into the same Jar. Developers can split up their .class files between jars however they see fit. As long as a program that uses those jars only compile-time refers to and run-time loads classes that have all their dependencies compile-time and run-time available, you will not see any runtime errors. Classes in a .jar file are not recompiled when you compile a program that uses them; but, if any of their dependencies fails at run-time, you will get a run-time exception.
When using Maven, each maven artifact (typically a jar file) declares (in its pom.xml manifest file) the artifacts that it depends on. If it makes any sense to use my-company:my-library-core without needing my-company:my-library-random-extension, it is best practice to not make -core depend on -random-extension, although typically -random-extension will depend on -core. Any dependencies of an artifact that you depend on will be resolved and "brought in" when maven runs.
Also, from your question, a word of warning -- it is highly probable that jackrabit-jcr2dav version 2.6.0 expects to run alongside jackrabbit-jcr-commons version 2.6.0, and not 2.8.0.
If I had to guess (without spending too much time delving into the Maven hierarchies of this particular project), I believe your problem is caused by the fact that jackrabbit-jcr-commons has an optional dependency on jackrabbit-api. That means that you will not automatically get that dependency (and it's dependencies) unless you re-declare it in your POM.
Generally speaking, optional dependencies are a band-aid solution to structural problems within a project. To quote the maven documentation on the subject (http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-excludes-dependencies.html):
Optional dependencies are used when it's not really possible (for
whatever reason) to split a project up into sub-modules. The idea is
that some of the dependencies are only used for certain features in
the project, and will not be needed if that feature isn't used.
Ideally, such a feature would be split into a sub-module that depended
on the core functionality project...this new subproject would have
only non-optional dependencies, since you'd need them all if you
decided to use the subproject's functionality.
However, since the project cannot be split up (again, for whatever
reason), these dependencies are declared optional. If a user wants to
use functionality related to an optional dependency, they will have to
redeclare that optional dependency in their own project. This is not
the most clear way to handle this situation, but then again both
optional dependencies and dependency exclusions are stop-gap
solutions.
Generally speaking, exploring the POMs of your dependencies will reveal this kind of problem, though that process can be quite painful.
What are the possibilities to enforce restrictions on the package dependencies in a Java build system? For example, the myapp.server.bl.Customer class should not be allowed to refer to the myapp.client.ui.customlayout package.
I'm interested in either Ant-based or IDE-specific solutions.
I'd like to get an error message in the build indicating that a (custom) package dependency rule has been violated and the build aborted. I also would like to maintain the dependencies in a list, preferably in a text file, outside of the Ant scripts or IDE project files.
(I don't know Maven but I've read it here it has better support for module dependency management)
I believe Checkstyle has a check for that.
It's called Import Control
You can configure Eclipse projects to specify Access Rules. Access rules can specify "Forbidden", "Discouraged", and "Accessible" levels all with wildcard rules. You can then configure violations of either Discouraged or Forbidden to be flagged as either warnings or errors during builds.
Kind of an old article on the idea (details may be out of date):
http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t53736.html
If you're using Eclipse (or OSGi) plugins, then the "public" parts of the plugin/module are explicitly defined and this is part of the model.
ivy seems like a good solution for your problem (if you are using ant). Ivy is the offical dependency management component of Ant and thus integrates nicely with ant. It is capable of resolving dependencies, handle conflicts, create exclusions and so on.
It uses a simple xml structure to describe the dependencies and is easier to use than Maven, because it only tries to address dependency resolution problems.
From the Ivy homepage:
Ivy is a tool for managing (recording, tracking, resolving and reporting) project dependencies. It is characterized by the following:
flexibility and configurability - Ivy is essentially process agnostic and is not tied to any methodology or structure. Instead it provides the necessary flexibility and configurability to be adapted to a broad range of dependency management and build processes.
tight integration with Apache Ant - while available as a standalone tool, Ivy works particularly well with Apache Ant providing a number of powerful Ant tasks ranging from dependency resolution to dependency reporting and publication.
For the IDE specific solutions, IntelliJ IDEA has a dependency analysis tool that allows one to define invalid dependencies as well.
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/webhelp2/dependency-validation-dialog.html
The dependency violation will be shown both when compiling and live, while editing the dependent class (as error/warning stripes in the right side error bar).
Even more automation can be obtained with JetBrains' TeamCity build server, that can run inspection builds and report the above configured checks.
For another IDE independent solution, AspectJ can be used to declare invalid dependencies (and integrate the step in the build process, in order to obtain warning/error info for the issues).
Eclipse has support for this via Build Path properties / jar properties. I think it may only work across jar / project boundaries.
Maybe Classsycle can be used:
http://classycle.sourceforge.net/ddf.html
You can use multiple modules in IDEA or Maven or multiple projects in Eclipse and Gradle. The concept is the same in all cases.
A trivial interpretation would be a module for myapp.server.bl and another for myapp.client.ui.customlayout with no compile time dependencies between either of them. Now any attempt to compile code or code-complete against the opposite module/project will fail as desired.
To audit how extensive the problem already is, a useful starting point for IntelliJ IDEA is Analyzing Dependencies:
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/webhelp/analyzing-dependencies.html
From that article you can see how to run and act on dependency analysis for your project.